|
NikolaosVolanisFirstPaper 11 - 05 Dec 2009 - Main.AndoY
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
ready for review | | | Thanks for your comment, Brian. I followed your advice, trying to stay within the word limit. I agree with you, point E. deserves more analysis than that found in this ending paragraph.
-- NikolaosVolanis - 04 Dec 2009 | |
>
> |
Nikolaos,
I like your essay.
One thing I came to my mind reading your essay is that neither Google nor Firefox may be the strongest search platform in China. They have their own local engine like Baidu.com. The way Chinese Internet is developing seems quite different from the rest of the world. A local search engine like Baidu.com should have better relationship with the Chinese government and maybe impossible even for open source players to gain a significant presence in China.
Anyhow, other than China, what you are saying seems very rational.
-- AndoY - 05 Dec 2009 | | | |
|
|
NikolaosVolanisFirstPaper 10 - 04 Dec 2009 - Main.NikolaosVolanis
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
ready for review | | | The aforementioned cases indicate that the state may influence the supply of hardware and software by commercial entities, by effectively asserting indirect control over the commercial entities themselves. A final and more recent example may be that of Google and its political/business interaction with the Chinese government: Google adopts the technology mandated by brute political force; Chinese governmental concerns about information over the net are fully addressed (since they are embedded in computer code) and Google can access and profit from the Chinese market. It takes a couple of golden handshakes and historical or current politically sensitive issues like “Tiananmen Protests” or “Tibetan independence” are seamlessly purged from the Google search results. A similar story took place with Yahoo! in 2002, whereas Microsoft's Bing it the most recent example search engine that respectfully bowed down before Party propaganda. | |
<
< | E. In this context, communications software and hardware acquires a meaning that surpasses the field of engineering. It becomes a form of control and thus a focus of political contest and choice (p. 28). And in such political contest, free software (“free as in free speech”) acquires its full potential
| >
> | E. In this context, communications software and hardware acquires a meaning that surpasses the field of engineering. It becomes a form of control and thus a focus of political contest and choice (p. 28). And in such political contest, free software (“free as in free speech”) acquires its full potential. In contrast to the top-down ("cathedral") model of organisational structure and production, where directives are set by the top and followed incontestably, the process behind free software production resembles more a "great babbling bazaar of different agendas and approaches", where authority follows and derives from responsibility and participation: the more an individual contributes to a project and takes responsibility for the pieces of software, the more decision authority that individual is granted by the community. This Aristotelian context of participation (in which the latter is perceived as a manifestation and reward of the highest virtue, underlines both the open source software production process and participatory democracy). | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, NikolaosVolanis | | | I enjoyed your essay. I agree that in the context you describe the tools of communication "surpass[] the field of engineering," and I also agree that the power of free software in such a domain, especially in light of governmental influence (as you describe), is significant. My only suggestion would be to consider drawing out E. just a bit more. Your discussion of C+D in light of A+B does a good job of painting a picture of the current situation, and in doing so your essay clearly conveys the dangers of the status quo. While I follow what you mean in E. and how you see it as a possible remedy, it would be helpful to add a sentence or two explaining it further. Otherwise, I appreciated the detailed links and careful historical discussion. I think the essay is nicely done.
-- BrianS - 03 Dec 2009 | |
>
> |
Thanks for your comment, Brian. I followed your advice, trying to stay within the word limit. I agree with you, point E. deserves more analysis than that found in this ending paragraph.
-- NikolaosVolanis - 04 Dec 2009 | | | |
|
|
NikolaosVolanisFirstPaper 9 - 03 Dec 2009 - Main.BrianS
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
ready for review | | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, NikolaosVolanis
| |
>
> |
Nikolaos,
I enjoyed your essay. I agree that in the context you describe the tools of communication "surpass[] the field of engineering," and I also agree that the power of free software in such a domain, especially in light of governmental influence (as you describe), is significant. My only suggestion would be to consider drawing out E. just a bit more. Your discussion of C+D in light of A+B does a good job of painting a picture of the current situation, and in doing so your essay clearly conveys the dangers of the status quo. While I follow what you mean in E. and how you see it as a possible remedy, it would be helpful to add a sentence or two explaining it further. Otherwise, I appreciated the detailed links and careful historical discussion. I think the essay is nicely done.
-- BrianS - 03 Dec 2009 | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
NikolaosVolanisFirstPaper 8 - 22 Nov 2009 - Main.NikolaosVolanis
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
ready for review | | | C. + D. Indeed, by enabling both confidentiality and identification, encryption technology can be perceived as both “liberating” and “oppressive” technology, depending on the actual parameters that define its use. The aforementioned examples demonstrate that as software or hardware development becomes a commercial activity, it is produced by a smaller number of for-profit entities, which, in turn can be incentivized or disincentivized by the state in adopting specific technological solutions or complying with governmental regulations. Although, for example, the IT-savvy community has argued that such an artificial attempt to control the flow of information and to restrain it within the U.S. would be futile, still, companies in the business of producing encryption technology prefered to comply with government regulations, in fear of invoking government contempt (or worse). Likewise, a company called Network Associates (the successor of the PGP software), originally a strong opponent of encryption regulation, started to offer products that adopted key recovery mechanisms for corporations. With regard to the hardware industry, Cisco provides us with another example of a company submitting to governmental incentives through regulation: In 1998, it announced a router that would enable encryption (thus providing encryption at the OSI network layer, not the application layer, as it is the case with software such as PGP), but which would contain a switch which would allow the government to override such encryption (p.71) so as to monitor internet traffic. | |
<
< | The aforementioned cases indicate that the state may influence the supply of hardware and software by commercial entities, by effectively asserting indirect control over the commercial entities themselves. A final and more recent example may be that of Google and its political/business interaction with the Chinese government: Google adopts the technology mandated by brute political force; Chinese governmental concerns about information over the net are fully addressed (since they are embedded in computer code) and Google can access and profit from the Chinese market. It takes a couple of golden handshakes and historical or current politically sensitive issues like “Tiananmen Protests” or “Tibetan independence” are seamlessly purged from the Google search results. A similar story took place with Yahoo! in 2002 | >
> | The aforementioned cases indicate that the state may influence the supply of hardware and software by commercial entities, by effectively asserting indirect control over the commercial entities themselves. A final and more recent example may be that of Google and its political/business interaction with the Chinese government: Google adopts the technology mandated by brute political force; Chinese governmental concerns about information over the net are fully addressed (since they are embedded in computer code) and Google can access and profit from the Chinese market. It takes a couple of golden handshakes and historical or current politically sensitive issues like “Tiananmen Protests” or “Tibetan independence” are seamlessly purged from the Google search results. A similar story took place with Yahoo! in 2002, whereas Microsoft's Bing it the most recent example search engine that respectfully bowed down before Party propaganda. | | | E. In this context, communications software and hardware acquires a meaning that surpasses the field of engineering. It becomes a form of control and thus a focus of political contest and choice (p. 28). And in such political contest, free software (“free as in free speech”) acquires its full potential
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|